It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited. I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject I thought people might be interested.

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited. I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject I thought people might be interested.

Oh. It might seem strange but I have no problem with age dating. There is an explanation for it. One that is a little involved.

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited. I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject I thought people might be interested.

"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."Ã¢â‚¬â€H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."Ã¢â‚¬â€H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

Sometimes in science a decade can see quite a bit of improvement in techniques. This is the claim made here. Your source from 40 years ago had possibly been superceded, at least according to the report just released that Phil linked. In it one can read:

Radiocarbon dating of ancient Egyptian objects is nothing new.

But this time, the scientists say, they were able to use a very precise statistical technique to actually verify the Egyptian history.

"The very first dating done with radiocarbon was dating Egyptian material of known dates, to check that [the method] worked," said Andrew Shortland from Cranfield University in the UK.

"Now, for the very first time, [we] managed to get radiocarbon techniques so good, that we can do it completely the opposite way around. We can say, from using radiocarbon, whether the Egyptian history is correct or not.

"Previously radiocarbon hasn't had a voice on this because the errors had been so great. Now radiocarbon is able to distinguish between different ideas of reconstructing the history."

Sometimes in science a decade can see quite a bit of improvement in techniques. This is the claim made here. Your source from 40 years ago had possibly been superceded, at least according to the report just released that Phil linked. In it one can read:

Modern humans have been around for about 135,000 years, not millions. Obviously that is still a long time.

The first cities arose about 8,000 BCE according to archaeology. Why no sooner? The Ice age finished about 10,000 BCE. That means there is a 2,000 year gap between the end of the ice age and the earliest cities.

Large communities may have existed before that, though.

Menes - 2,900 BCE. Flood - 2,300BCE. There is a problem there anyway. Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy. I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

Get one or two sources that are dubious and ignore the rest.

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens. Have you read his book? You are ignoring sources.

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it. The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time. Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make. If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents. Scotland and half of England were covered. Why does no other account mention it.

Plus: "where firstly we are told that during Partholan's coming to Ireland (15th century BC) he counted 'but three laughs [lochs or lakes] and nyne Rivers in the Kingdom'. (1) But then, during the later second colonisation of Ireland, we are told that 'Many Laughs and Rivers broke out in their time'"

How reliable is this source?

Your whole arguments seem to be based on just picking and choosing your sources to fit your preconceptions.

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

What is the mainstream view on Egypt? What evidence is used to back that up?

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy. I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

Get one or two sources that are dubious and ignore the rest.

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens. Have you read his book? You are ignoring sources.

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it. The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time. Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make. If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents. Scotland and half of England were covered. Why does no other account mention it.

Plus: "where firstly we are told that during Partholan's coming to Ireland (15th century BC) he counted 'but three laughs [lochs or lakes] and nyne Rivers in the Kingdom'. (1) But then, during the later second colonisation of Ireland, we are told that 'Many Laughs and Rivers broke out in their time'"

How reliable is this source?

Your whole arguments seem to be based on just picking and choosing your sources to fit your preconceptions.

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

What is the mainstream view on Egypt? What evidence is used to back that up?

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

Phil,

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

YEC's did like Clifford Wilson in his book Crash Go the Chariots (1972).

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

Yes, but it's then evolutionist assumption to believe since they are at the lower level they are older.

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it.

Evolutionist assumption.

The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time. Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

Evolutionist assumption (again...).

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make. If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents. Scotland and half of England were covered. Why does no other account mention it.

They do, have a look around.

How reliable is this source?

The Annals of Clonmacnoise? You can find Connell McGeoghegan's manuscript translation of this Irish Chronicle in the British Museum.

It shatters your world-view of course, since the chronicle supports Young Earth Creation, as do thousands of other chronicles.

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

There is no 'mainstream view' on the Ice Age since the dates have bever been decided for when it occured.

What is the mainstream view on Egypt? What evidence is used to back that up?

The mainstream view of egypt is that Menes was the first king around 2,900BC, yet this date is being reduced all the time supporting Ussher's dating.

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

Why call yourself a skeptic then? As i said you aren't a skeptic at all, you only believe what you are told or what the majority believe in. Why not explore the evidence as an individual? A true skeptic doubt everything at first and then comes to a conclusion based on his independant research.

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

Cheers, Geode

it's best not to make assumptions about people you don't know. And making it personal like you have with the snide remark at the end. If you do not like debating someone you can click on their name then click ignore and their posts will disappear so you don't have to read them.